immortal Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 "Access to the Vedas is the greatest privilege this century may claim over all previous centuries." - J. Robert Oppenheimer The allegory of the cave, the metaphor of the Sun and the platonic realism of Plato are indeed true. An intelligible realm indeed exists and the whole Vedic thought is culminated on knowing the different manifested light rays of this intelligible realm and knowing these light rays individually helps us understand how the cosmos works and gives you freedom from the cave. The Secret of the Vedas by Aurobindo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imatfaal Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 ! Moderator Note immortalThis is getting very like preaching. Your post had no question, no point put forward for debate; it seems the motivation was only to promote a set of texts. Please do not do this. You can report this modnote if you feel it is unwarranted or unjust. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
immortal Posted November 27, 2012 Author Share Posted November 27, 2012 Of course there was a point to discuss this and there are other sites and media for promoting things if I want to but I want to discuss with intellectuals and not preach to innocent people who can be easily manipulated. If no one at SFN devalued an important text of late antiquity, an important line of research, a new discovery then yes, there was no point in posting this but on the contrary people born out of ignorance do make errors and it need to be challenged so that the truth of the matter doesn't go unaddressed. Don't worry, the number of people holding a belief will not change the facts and the truth. What's true will remain as true. Chandragupta's posts are admirably courteous. They're a lesson in how to be polite. And they attempt, eloquently, to convey Indian mystical thoughts - the "Wisdom of the East". Such "wisdom" may look impressive at first sight. But it falls down when analysed linguistically. For example, every word in the "Vedas" seems to carry about ten different possible meanings. Can such vagueness convey precision of thought? Surely not - English is needed to clarify and pin down the meanings. Also, the question arises: has Eastern mysticism ever brought any tangible benefits - like inventing steam-engines and railways. India owes its railways to 19th-Century Westerners, who came in and built them - using Western Science and Engineering. No Eastern gods or demi-gods helped in the construction. So unless Eastern mysticism can demonstrate some practical results, shouldn't it be thrown into the dustbin of history? This is abomination before investigation and should not be the attitude of a scientific mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterJ Posted December 14, 2012 Share Posted December 14, 2012 (edited) " ,,,but I want to discuss with intellectuals and not preach to innocent people who can be easily manipulated" I detect a distinct reluctance to engage intellectually with the topic. What I see is endless assertions, many of them doubtful and imho misleading. How about some logical argument, a useful theory or some testable predictions. It is bound to cause nothing but trouble coming on a science forum and expecting people to take seriously (what appear to be) legends about divine rays of light and transcendent realities. You have to get down to brass tacks. You might also point out that not everyone shares your interpretation of the Vedas. Without any of this Dekan;s objection will stand. Which is a shame, because it is profoundly ignorant. I know you're on a mission, and I can respect that, but this approach cannot work with scientifically minded people. It just alienates them, which is not skilful. For Dekan, surely there should be an explanation of the value of using words with various meanings and of the motivation for using them, then some discussion of the tangible benefits of mysticism, then a rebuttal of the idea that this wisdom 'falls down' in any way. His objection indicates not abomination but a scientific mind. He makes fair objections (given a lack of aquaintance with the issues) and they deserve to met properly, not dismissed casually. It does not add up when you say you want to talk to intellectuals and then dismiss Dekan's objections as abomination. Does he not qualify? Edited December 14, 2012 by PeterJ 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
immortal Posted December 14, 2012 Author Share Posted December 14, 2012 I know you're on a mission, and I can respect that, but this approach cannot work with scientifically minded people. It just alienates them, which is not skilful. I guess you don't realize that if your paper From Metaphysics to mysticism or your proof needs to be valid then this world-view of Aurobindo needs to be true because if this world-view turns out to be false then your proof doesn't apply to this cosmos where you try to prove that the universe is a unity. That's what I don't like about metaphysics it might guide us but it doesn't tell us what its implications are. So where as you have taken a different approach than me, I am investigating the very heart of the problem so that either we abandon such forms of thinking as soon as possible because its very much mentally disturbing or take them very seriously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted December 15, 2012 Share Posted December 15, 2012 This is abomination before investigation and should not be the attitude of a scientific mind. No, actually it is the way science works, you keep saying investigate while ignoring anything that doesn't agree with you, that is not science it is faith... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted December 15, 2012 Share Posted December 15, 2012 In our legal system, we have an idea that one is innocent until proven guilty. In science, it's quite the opposite where something is bullshit until evidence provides good reason to believe otherwise. Guess where most of these religious ideas land? The most damning science that shows religion to be little more than silly mythology and wish-thinking are psychology and sociology. A study of either of those two fields essentially erases the need to study any religious texts in search of anything more than a better understanding of culture. Any truth in them is accidental, and you probably agree with me with regards to any of the countless other religious beliefs out there that are not equivalent to your own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
immortal Posted December 15, 2012 Author Share Posted December 15, 2012 No, actually it is the way science works, you keep saying investigate while ignoring anything that doesn't agree with you, that is not science it is faith... Its foolishness to throw them into the dustbin of human history when the stage has been set to reconsider them. It is worth noting that d’Espagnat himself notices that the similarities between his conception of veiled reality and “the great eastern philosophical systems should be considered. . . ” - Jonathon Duqette, philosopher of religion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted December 15, 2012 Share Posted December 15, 2012 Its foolishness to throw them into the dustbin of human history when the stage has been set to reconsider them. Why should we? Because some guy thinks they should be? This has been the stance of religion from the beginning, they are always just in need of reconsideration and yet our entire first world culture is based in empirical reality, no new anything but reconsideration of the same old tired meaningless texts on what some bronze age people thought about how they thought the world worked from religion. Little or nothing of substance has ever come out of the ancient wisdom, science in a couple hundred years, relying on a study of reality through empirical evidence has brought us untold riches both as a species, as a culture, and as individual human beings. I honestly think at this point your assertions have become extraordinary and for this you need extraordinary evidence not weakly circumstantial evidence... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterJ Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 I guess you don't realize that if your paper From Metaphysics to mysticism or your proof needs to be valid then this world-view of Aurobindo needs to be true because if this world-view turns out to be false then your proof doesn't apply to this cosmos where you try to prove that the universe is a unity. That's what I don't like about metaphysics it might guide us but it doesn't tell us what its implications are. So where as you have taken a different approach than me, I am investigating the very heart of the problem so that either we abandon such forms of thinking as soon as possible because its very much mentally disturbing or take them very seriously Your first sentence I find very difficult to follow, but I think I agree with it. I'm not criticising the Vedas, I'm suggesting that your approach to attracting some attention to them is going to annoy scientifically-minded people like me. You must be able to see this from the responses yout posts attract. I'm more or less on your side, but I'm also on the side of those who complain that for the most part religion comes across as waffle. Metaphysics is precisely the investigation of the implications of axioms. Of course, as you say, it cannot produce knowledge of reality, only empiricism can do that, but it shows us exactly where such knowledge might be found and fully vindicates both Aurobindo and the Vedas. I feel it is a poor idea not to use the brains God gave us at least to the extent we are able. But yes, in the end the intellect meets a brick wall and .other methods are required. If you allowed me to I'd make a far stronger case for the Vedas than you have here. But you always torpedo my attempts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
immortal Posted December 17, 2012 Author Share Posted December 17, 2012 Your first sentence I find very difficult to follow, but I think I agree with it. I'm not criticising the Vedas, I'm suggesting that your approach to attracting some attention to them is going to annoy scientifically-minded people like me. You must be able to see this from the responses yout posts attract. I'm more or less on your side, but I'm also on the side of those who complain that for the most part religion comes across as waffle. Common mistakes that people do while studying eastern religions - 1. Put western philosophy and western thought on a pedestal without realizing that Asian thought isn't positivistic. 2. Make Advaita atheistic without realizing that the traditional view takes the existence of gods very seriously. 3. Ignore the minor philosophical differences between Advaita and Buddhism. 4. Epistemologically link quantum physics and Advaita without realizing that they are based on two completely different epistemology and are incompatible with one another. I am from the local and I know the truth and these religions should be understood with in their own milieu and obviously that annoys a lot of people because I state things as they are without showing any double standards. Metaphysics is precisely the investigation of the implications of axioms. Of course, as you say, it cannot produce knowledge of reality, only empiricism can do that, but it shows us exactly where such knowledge might be found and fully vindicates both Aurobindo and the Vedas. I feel it is a poor idea not to use the brains God gave us at least to the extent we are able. But yes, in the end the intellect meets a brick wall and .other methods are required. Modern science is very new but its foolish to ignore the history of mankind and ignore other sciences which has been rejected by the western academy. If you allowed me to I'd make a far stronger case for the Vedas than you have here. But you always torpedo my attempts. Why do you think I can single handedly drive you away from this forum? But don't piss me off by saying Advaita is atheistic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 Modern science is very new but its foolish to ignore the history of mankind and ignore other sciences which has been rejected by the western academy. Please elaborate on this, what "other sciences" has the west ignored? Have these sciences added anything to sum total on human knowledge? Have they bettered the human condition in any way comparable to "Western" Science? What technologies are based in these other sciences? Did they contribute to elimination of disease? Have they sent man to the moon? Do they feed the world? Come on Immortal, you keep making these vague assertions of your ideas about god being based in science and so far you have failed to show any connection at all other than vague claims and interpretations of misunderstood science concepts... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
immortal Posted December 18, 2012 Author Share Posted December 18, 2012 Please elaborate on this, what "other sciences" has the west ignored? Yes, for example Esotericism. https://www.google.co.in/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&ved=0CD0QFjAB&url=http://www.lists.ufl.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A3=ind1202a&L=PSYART&E=base64&P=652049&B=--14dae93404139e87ec04b851fddd&T=application/pdf; name="Esotericism and the Academy.pdf"&N=Esotericism and the Academy.pdf&attachment=q&ei=LCDQUKKqMcLOrQfQoYC4DA&usg=AFQjCNFhz2K6AFbyfOR0hy3V3-pHtfZAiw&sig2=ZVL6uayGCZ42wVD2tkYj7A&bvm=bv.1355534169,d.bmk Wouter J. Hanegraaff, Esotericism and the Academy: Rejected Knowledge in Western Culture Cambridge University Press 2012 Academics tend to look on “esoteric,” “occult,” or “magical” beliefs with contempt, but are usually ignorant about the religious and philosophical traditions to which these terms refer, or their relevance to intellectual history. Wouter J. Hanegraaff tells the neglected story of how intellectuals since the Renaissance have tried to come to terms with a cluster of “pagan” ideas from late antiquity that challenged the foundations of biblical religion and Greek rationality. Expelled from the academy on the basis of Protestant and Enlightenment polemics, these traditions have come to be perceived as the Other by which academics define their identity to the present day. Hanegraaff grounds his discussion in a meticulous study of primary and secondary sources, taking the reader on an exciting intellectual voyage from the fifteenth century to the present day, and asking what implications the forgotten history of exclusion has for established textbook narratives of religion, philosophy, and science. Empirical method in the study of esotericism. http://www.alpheus.org/html/articles/esoteric_history/Empirical method in the study of esotericism.pdf Have these sciences added anything to sum total on human knowledge? Yes, in recognizing that a non-physical mind exists and also an intellect exist in the platonic realm and we take much pride in having discovered such esoteric secrets about our cosmos and this is the reason why physicists have not yet been able to solve the measurement problem and come up with a model of the mind simulating human conscious thought and if they continue ignoring these sciences they never will. Have they bettered the human condition in any way comparable to "Western" Science? At least they will prevent crazy shoot outs on innocent people. What technologies are based in these other sciences? Did they contribute to elimination of disease? Have they sent man to the moon? Do they feed the world? Come on Immortal, you keep making these vague assertions of your ideas about god being based in science and so far you have failed to show any connection at all other than vague claims and interpretations of misunderstood science concepts... Every science is useful in its own way and it isn't fair to completely demolish such a science and at the same time expect fruits from the same science. How much has the west investigated in these sciences? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterJ Posted December 18, 2012 Share Posted December 18, 2012 (edited) It is official! Immortal is omniscient. Let us biow down and never disagree with him. Clearly no objections are possible. Let us hope that one day he can refer us to just one piece of work that indicates he has a good grasp of the topics. I try and try, but there is no getting past the man. So confusion must continue to reign for the time being. Let me just say this, for those people who might be interested in the Vedas one day. The term 'advaita' is not ambiguous on the issue of God. To interpret it as theism is impossible,for a serious student. No need to take my word for it. Any decent book on the topic will make this clear. Luckily few people take internet forums to be a sound source of information. At least I hope not. Edited December 18, 2012 by PeterJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
immortal Posted December 18, 2012 Author Share Posted December 18, 2012 LoL, why do you continue to make a fool of yourself? Why do you continue to make the same common mistakes that people do without knowing the view of the Acharays who gave us the doctrine of Advaita to the world? Schroedinger didn't go too far down the rabbit hole. -1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted December 18, 2012 Share Posted December 18, 2012 Yes, for example Esotericism. https://www.google.co.in/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&ved=0CD0QFjAB&url=http://www.lists.ufl.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A3=ind1202a&L=PSYART&E=base64&P=652049&B=--14dae93404139e87ec04b851fddd&T=application/pdf; name="Esotericism and the Academy.pdf"&N=Esotericism and the Academy.pdf&attachment=q&ei=LCDQUKKqMcLOrQfQoYC4DA&usg=AFQjCNFhz2K6AFbyfOR0hy3V3-pHtfZAiw&sig2=ZVL6uayGCZ42wVD2tkYj7A&bvm=bv.1355534169,d.bmk Empirical method in the study of esotericism. http://www.alpheus.org/html/articles/esoteric_history/Empirical method in the study of esotericism.pdf Yes, in recognizing that a non-physical mind exists and also an intellect exist in the platonic realm and we take much pride in having discovered such esoteric secrets about our cosmos and this is the reason why physicists have not yet been able to solve the measurement problem and come up with a model of the mind simulating human conscious thought and if they continue ignoring these sciences they never will. At least they will prevent crazy shoot outs on innocent people. Every science is useful in its own way and it isn't fair to completely demolish such a science and at the same time expect fruits from the same science. How much has the west investigated in these sciences? So in other words to my question of Have these sciences added anything to sum total on human knowledge? Your answer is No... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterJ Posted December 18, 2012 Share Posted December 18, 2012 Moontanman - It's a fair criticism. It doesn't hold much water, but under the circumstances I can't see how you could know that. I'm not allowed to answer since apparently I know nothing about all this. Shame really. It's odd that I get no objections to my views from people who study these things anywhere else but on this forum, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted December 18, 2012 Share Posted December 18, 2012 Moontanman - It's a fair criticism. It doesn't hold much water, but under the circumstances I can't see how you could know that. I'm not allowed to answer since apparently I know nothing about all this. Shame really. It's odd that I get no objections to my views from people who study these things anywhere else but on this forum, PeterJ, if you have special information pertaining to this don't let Immortal intimidate you, he is failing miserably to support his assertions so far... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted December 19, 2012 Share Posted December 19, 2012 LoL, why do you continue to make a fool of yourself? ! Moderator Note Please, avoid making personal attacks. Attack the idea instead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterJ Posted December 19, 2012 Share Posted December 19, 2012 PeterJ, if you have special information pertaining to this don't let Immortal intimidate you, he is failing miserably to support his assertions so far... Quite right. But it is difficult to present a clear view under the circimstances. This is Immortal's;thread and so I won't get further involved. The questions will come around again elsewhere, and when I have a bit more time i'll start a thread. I have every sympathy with your view, and feel that the sceptical questions asked here deserve proper answers and not woolly platitudes. . In the meantime, if anyone browsing here is interested in the late Vedas I'd thoroughly recommed Radhakrishnan S., The Philosophy of the Upanishads. This gives a clear and authoritative exposition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
immortal Posted December 19, 2012 Author Share Posted December 19, 2012 (edited) So in other words to my question of Have these sciences added anything to sum total on human knowledge? Your answer is No... Perhaps you read only what you want to read. Yes, in recognizing that a non-physical mind exists and also an intellect exist in the platonic realm and we take much pride in having discovered such esoteric secrets about our cosmos and this is the reason why physicists have not yet been able to solve the measurement problem and come up with a model of the mind simulating human conscious thought and if they continue ignoring these sciences they never will. Edited December 19, 2012 by immortal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted December 19, 2012 Share Posted December 19, 2012 Perhaps you read only what you want to read. Pot kettle black immortal.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
immortal Posted December 19, 2012 Author Share Posted December 19, 2012 Moontanman - It's a fair criticism. It doesn't hold much water, but under the circumstances I can't see how you could know that. I'm not allowed to answer since apparently I know nothing about all this. Shame really. It's odd that I get no objections to my views from people who study these things anywhere else but on this forum, Its quite obvious that you're misinformed.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted December 19, 2012 Share Posted December 19, 2012 Its quite obvious that you're misinformed.... It's quite obvious that you don't know what being informed is... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
immortal Posted December 19, 2012 Author Share Posted December 19, 2012 ! Moderator Note Please, avoid making personal attacks. Attack the idea instead. I cannot have a productive discussion with him unless he stops being sarcastic with me and let go his ego. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now